CONSERVATIVE
MP and dog lover Andrew Rosindell instigated a short debate
on dog welfare in the House of Commons last week, highlighting
various issues affecting dogs, including the Greyhound racing
industry and the Dangerous Dogs Act, of which Mr Rosindell
has been a long-time critic. Mr Rosindell proved himself to
be a friend ton dogs when, as Chairman of the Young Conservatives
in 1992, he bucked the Party line and spoke out against the
injustice of the newly-enacted Dangerous Dogs Act, describing
it as "a most un-Conservative piece of legislation."

Later, Mr Rosindell contested Glasgow, Provan at the 1992
General Election and Thurrock at the 1997 General election,
before finally being elected to Romford in 2001, overturning
a Labour majority and this becoming one of the few Tories
to take a seat from Labour. On each occasion, Mr Rosindell
was accompanied by his faithful Staffordshire Bull terrier,
Spike who sported a Union Jack waistcoat. Sadly,
Spike died last year, having attained the grand old age of
14.

The Adjournment Debate began at 10.30pm on the Monday night.
Mr Rosindell began his speech by outling the value of dogs
to the British public, saying: "Millions of British people,
including many of our constituents, either own or have owned
a dog. There are an equally large number of dog lovers in
Britain who recognise the importance of these creatures in
the lives of humankind. I am therefore certain that hon. Members
will agree that we all have a responsibility to be concerned
for their well-being."

He then paid glowing tribute to the many campaigners within
canine charities and organisations, adding: " .I
have had the privilege of working with some of the most dedicated
and committed campaigners on dog issues. Indeed, I would like
to begin by paying tribute to some of those people and the
organisations that they represent. They include Clarissa Baldwin
of the National Canine Defence League, whose famous slogan,
A dog is for life, not just for Christmas, has
probably saved the lives of thousands of dogs up and down
this land, and Ronnie Irving, Phil Buckley and Caroline Kisko
of the Kennel Club, whose work in the world of dogs goes far
beyond the wildest expectations of any dog lover, ranging
from welfare issues to dog shows, breeding and, of course,
the Westminster dog of the year competition.

Inspiration

Juliette
Glass of the Fury Defence Fund has been
a personal inspiration to me. She is always there with an
open ear and friendly advice to people all over the country
who have problems in the dog world. Juliette has helped to
save many dogs from immediate death, following the implementation
of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, prior to its amendment."

Mr Rosindell then praised Battersea Dogs Home, where
he had paid a visit earlier that day, meeting staff, vounteers
and several of the dogs in the Homes care.

He went on to pay tribute to two more campaigners in the forms
of Joanna Mason of Staffordshire Bull Terrier Rescue South
East and Ann Harpwood of the charity Justice For Dogs, of
which Mr Rosindell is now chief patron.

The loyal Spike was mentioned in detail, with Mr Rosindell
cimenting shrewdly: "Always full of energy and enthusiasm,
Spike proved to me that a dog really is a man's best friend.
Until the last day of his life, he remained reliable, committed
to everything that I did and, above all, steadfastly loyal.
Politicians could learn a thing or two from those creatures."

The benefits given by dogs to Society was covered in detail,
when Mr Rosindell praised the work of Guide Dogs, Assitance
Dogs and PAT Dogs, as well as those who work in the police
force, mountain rescue and Search and Rescue.

Needless to say, the DDA came in for serious criticism by
Mr Rosindell, who robustly condemned the Act for its many
failings:

" 12 years ago, sadly, the House committed an awful
injustice to certain breeds of dog following the introduction
of the Dangerous Dogs Actwhich, to my regret, was introduced
by a Conservative Government. The 1991 Act was a draconian
piece of legislation that penalised some breeds just because
of a handful of isolated but tragic incidents. It was a classic
example of ill thought out, rushed legislation at its worst.
The Act has led to the unnecessary destruction of countless
gentle family pets and criminalised many respectable dog ownersespecially
before the 1997 amendment that led to the compulsory death
sentence of dogs. The legislation has also cost the British
taxpayer millions of pounds.

In a written answer to me on 8 May 2002, it was revealed that
the total cost to the Metropolitan police, which hold the
largest number of dogs under the 1991 Act, was more than £4.5
million. Multiplying that figure across the 451 police forces
in the United Kingdom paints an expensive picture. I challenge
any right hon. or hon. Member to prove that all those dogs
are necessarily dangerous to society. Surely it is the deed,
not the breed, that should be punished.

The Act's provisions fundamentally go against the grain of
the British legal tradition. Under Section 1 of the Act, it
is for the owner of the seized dog to prove to the court that
it is not of a banned type hardly innocent before proven
guilty. I am not asking for the handful of dogs that cause
problems to go unpunished but as the Kennel Club correctly
puts it, the deed should be punished, not the breed.

"I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the work that
must be done to promote responsible dog ownership. There are
no problem breeds, just a handful of problem owners.
The law punishes a dog simply for the way that it looks, rather
than cracking down on the criminal and antisocial behaviour
of certain irresponsible dog owners. Surely it would be more
successful to refocus the law to deal with the irresponsibility
that leads to problemsmaking the offence not the ownership
of the dog but the handling of itand rather than attacking
entire breeds, properly to enforce laws such as those that
prohibit unleashed dogs in public areas and compulsory muzzling
orders.

As part of the drive to promote responsible dog ownership,
dog awareness should be covered in schools. If children are
taught from an early age how to respond when around dogs and
to look after a dog properly, and are taught what a dog needs
to lead a healthy and trouble-free life, when those children
become dog owners later and enjoy them as pets in a family
situation, they will be able to give their dog the care and
attention it deserves. "
Mr Rosindell then threw the gauntlet down to the Government
by seeking assurances on a number of points concerning dogs
and related legislation, which have caused concern to dog
owners throughout the UK:

"I seek some assurances from the Minister tonight: first,
that the Government will not seek to introduce legislation
without proper consultation with the main dog organisations
and charities; secondly, that they will seek to form stronger
relationships with those groups, giving support where it is
needed; thirdly, that the Minister will consider promoting
dog awareness and responsible dog ownership in schools and
communities; and, finally, that the Government will seriously
review those laws already on the statute book, the limitations
of which I have highlighted earlier in my speech."

Animal Welfare Ministter Elliot Morley had remained in the
House at the late hour, specifically to hear Mr Rosindells
speech in a demonstration of how seriously he must view the
issues raised.

Mr Morley praised Mr Rosindell for his speech and raising
the matter of dog welfare, saying: " I echo the
hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the work of many charities
and welfare groups, such as the National Canine Defence League,
the Kennel Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, the Blue Cross and a range of dogs homes .

"...I agree that dogs, like other pets, reduce stress.
That is one of their great values. Dogs also fulfil many important
rolesfor example, working dogs. The hon. Gentleman is
right to refer to enforcement and responsible ownership, and
we take those issues seriously."

Mr Morley answered the specific points raised by Rosindell
on behalf of the Government, being unequivocal in declaring
his commitment to animal welfare and maintaining close co-operation
with the world of dogs on issues affecting dogs and dog ownership,
saying: "The hon. Gentleman asked me to reply on three
points, and I shall certainly do so. First, he asked me to
give an assurance that the Government would not introduce
legislation on dogs or animal welfare without consultation
with the various groups and stakeholders.

Strong support

I freely give that commitment. He will be aware that we are
consulting on a new Animal welfare Bill, which is designed
to consolidate the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and associated
legislation in a new welfare Bill fit for the 21st century.
Not only are we consulting on that but we have been through
one round of consultation. We intend to respond, and we propose
to produce a draft Bill on which people will be able to comment
before we apply for parliamentary time. It is right and proper
that we have such consultation with all the various groups,
particularly on such fundamental issues as upgrading animal
welfare legislation, which probably comes round only about
once a century. It is therefore very important that we get
the Bill right.

The hon. Gentleman also asked the Government to give strong
support for relationships with other groups. Again, I am happy
to give that commitment. I have attended the associate group
on several occasions to talk to the various welfare organisations
and interested Members from all parties who want to raise
issues of animal welfare, including dog ownership.
The hon. Gentleman asked, too, about promoting dog awareness,
which is a serious issue that we need to support through local
authorities and dog warden schemes. Many councils have a very
good record on this, in relation not only to dog enforcement
but to promoting responsible dog ownership. We are keen to
support that serious issue. "

Mr Morley paid close attention to the contentious issue of
the DDA, saying: "The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was mentioned
by the hon. Gentleman. I understand exactly his points, but
even though that legislation was introduced under a Conservative
Government, it was designed to address a serious problem.
The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 was a great improvement,
and many of us thought that it would have been sensible to
include that commonsense amendment, which gave the courts
discretion to decide whether an animal fell within the meaning
of the Act, from the very beginning. Instead, the strict and
rigorous interpretation of the Act, as the hon. Gentleman
rightly says, gave courts no discretion and caused a great
deal of problems.

Mr Morley added that a great deal of the problem relating
the Pit Bulls concerned organised dog fighting: " .The
main problem was the Pit Bull Terrier, which became notorious
not only for illegal dog fighting but for a number of well-documented
attacks on individuals. It is a very broad, muscular, smooth-haired
dog noted for its strength and determination: a very dangerous
cocktail of characteristics and features.

There are concerns that organised dog fighting is still taking
place. Unfortunately, pit bull types can go under other names:
for example, American Staffordshire terriers, Irish Staffordshire
terriers and American bull dogs. They may not be called pit
bull terriers, but they are pit bull types and prohibited
under the 1991 Act. That is an abuse, and it is unfortunate
that people try to present and sell such dogs as some form
of Staffordshire bull terrier, thereby encouraging illegal
activities. That does no good to the reputation of the Staffordshire
bull terrier breed, which is completely undeserved. The hon.
Gentleman may be interested to know that, by the end of April,
my Department will have published a leaflet to assist enforcement
agencies, as well as those whose work may bring them into
contact with dogs, with guidelines on identification to help
them to deal with some of the problems that he has rightly
outlined.

I make no apology for trying to protect the public and to
prevent the appalling act of organised dog fighting in which
dogs are encouraged to inflict as much injury on each other
as possible. Organised dog fighting is an international problem
and, sadly, websites advertise such dogs for sale with proud
boasts about their "gameness", which is code for,
and a clear reference to, their fighting ability. Because
the dogs are bred for fighting, they are also a risk to people

" One proposal that we are considering for the proposed
new animal welfare Bill is to raise the penalties for those
involved in organised animal fights as well as to give the
police greater powers to deal with those unpleasant events.
As long as there is a threat that the number of dogs specifically
bred for fighting could be on the increase and that members
of the public could be placed in danger, there is not a credible
argument for removing those dogs from section 1 of the 1991
Act. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was arguing
for that, as he was expressing worries about the confusion
between breeds."

Irresponsible

Mr
Morley concluded his reply by saying that the DDA provided
necessary protection for the public, but recognised that there
were problems with its application, which his department were
hoping to address: "The 1991 Act does not just prohibit
the possession of certain types of dogs. Under section 3,
it is an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control
in a public place or in a place where it has no right to be.
Again, we should not apologise for that. It is a necessary
piece of public protection legislation. Although I accept
that many dog attacks are caused by a lack of control, a lack
of care and irresponsible owners, we must recognise that some
people will breed dogs that can inflict terrible damage on
people, particularly children, and that are linked with the
illegal dog-fighting rings. For all those reasons, I believe
that the legislation has a role to play. It has been applied
as carefully as the courts can apply it, but there will always
be difficult borderline cases in which it is necessary to
identify a dog under the breed-specific provisions in the
law. Overall, however, the legislation is justified.

The hon. Gentleman has made a very good case and a number
of fair points, and I have listened carefully to him on behalf
of the Government. In the future Animal Welfare Bill, we intend
to address some of the abuses and the penalties. If there
are specific problems about the workings of the 1991 Act,
I should be only too pleased to consider them on their individual
merits."

"The Kennel Club is delighted with the content of Andrew
Rosindell's Adjournment Debate, which took place on Monday.
Of particular interest to us was The Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State Elliot Morley's response to the 'dangerous dog' issue,
as he has promised consultation with various groups such as
the KC, prior to introducing further legislation on dogs,
and also flagged up DEFRA's strong support for relationships
with other groups. "Mr Morley also genuinely seems to
have a thorough understanding of the workings of the DDA and
is also aware of areas of potential abuse.

It would also appear that, by the end of April, his
department will be issuing a leaflet to assist enforcement
agencies with guidelines on identification to help them to
deal with some of the problems outlined by Mr Rosindell. Mr
Morley concluded that if there are specific problems about
the workings of the 1991 Act, that he would be only too pleased
to consider them on their individual merits.

Readers will be aware that the Kennel Club and other
like-minded organisations such as the NCDL, RSPCA and Blue
Cross, are continuing to focus and give a great deal of consideration
to the DDA 91, through the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group,
special meetings of the Dog Legislation Advisory Group and
continual liaison with the Metropolitan Police Service.

We are very pleased with the discussion that took place
on Monday and will be taking this issue forward with DEFRA
shortly. "Mr Rosindell is to be congratulated for his
continued interest and support for 'dogdom' and it will be
the KC's intention to continue to try and 'find' more MPs
like him!"

The full text of the Dog Welfare Debate can be seen in Hansard
online at: